One Pocket Rules ????

CocoboloCowboy

CocoboloCowboy

Cowboys are my hero's
Silver Member
Rules states that in order to have a legal break in one pocket, cue ball must hit rack, and at least 1 ball after contact must go to rail.

So what is the consequences of the cue ball missing the rack, and going on to touch a rail?

Ball Penalty, Person Breaking gives up Break, or what?
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Rules states that in order to have a legal break in one pocket, cue ball must hit rack, and at least 1 ball after contact must go to rail.

So what is the consequences of the cue ball missing the rack, and going on to touch a rail?

Ball Penalty, Person Breaking gives up Break, or what?
Click to expand...

The answer to that is in the rule book.
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Rules states that in order to have a legal break in one pocket, cue ball must hit rack, and at least 1 ball after contact must go to rail.

So what is the consequences of the cue ball missing the rack, and going on to touch a rail?

Ball Penalty, Person Breaking gives up Break, or what?
Click to expand...

Well...........we all know that you are only playing for funzies in your rec center. Given that info: just let the guy rebreak, he obviously miscued by mistake.
On the other hand, if you are playing for $100 a rack, the answer is in the rule book.;)
 
The opening break begins with ball in hand behind the head string. On the break, the cue ball may contact either a cushion or any ball in the rack first, but in either case, after contacting at least one ball, an object ball must be pocketed, or the cue ball or at least one object ball must contact a rail, otherwise it is a one foul penalty. As long as a legal stroke is employed from behind the head string on the break, the incoming player must play the
balls where they lie – there are no re-racks for a pocket scratch or failure to contact a cushion or pocket a ball on the break.

Found this online, the BCA rule book was not specific about what happen in that instance.
 
How would you determine who has what pocket. Is that covered in the rule? Rick S, the link failed. I've never had this happen and I'm to tired to look it up.
 
The most likely scenerio for this happening is a miscue on the break. The cue ball moves a foot or so, and doesn't hit the rack. I would say the breaker is on one foul, the non-breaker shoots from where the cueball ended up.

The pocket of the breaker is designated before the break. So that is a non-issue if there was a miscue on the break.

I've never seen or heard this happen, but I'm sure it has at some point.

The rules at Onepocket.org might have this covered. That would be the only place on the internet worth looking for onepocket rules. Nowhere else.
 
CocoboloCowboy said:
Rules states that in order to have a legal break in one pocket, cue ball must hit rack, and at least 1 ball after contact must go to rail.

So what is the consequences of the cue ball missing the rack, and going on to touch a rail?

Ball Penalty, Person Breaking gives up Break, or what?
Click to expand...
Here is the official rule from onepocket.org:

2.2 The opening break begins with ball in hand behind the head string. On the break, the cue ball may contact either a cushion or any ball in the rack first, but in either case, after contacting at least one ball, an object ball must be pocketed, or the cue ball or at least one object ball must contact a rail, otherwise it is a one foul penalty. As long as a legal stroke is employed from behind the head string on the break, the incoming player must play the balls where they lie – there are no re-racks for a pocket scratch or failure to contact a cushion or pocket a ball on the break.


So the breaker would be on one foul, and the incoming player would shoot from wherever the balls laid.

Doc
 
Fenwick said:
How would you determine who has what pocket. Is that covered in the rule? Rick S, the link failed. I've never had this happen and I'm to tired to look it up.
Click to expand...

You're supposed to call you're pocket before breaking, so you'd have the pocket you called.
 
Roger Long,Tramp Steamer,and tuscon9ball: I have nothing against you guys but I would like to know why you gave such snotty answers to Cowboy's question. They contained somewhat less than the spirit of which the Forum holds in high esteem.:shrug:
 
top 10 reasons

I'm not any of those mentioned...but I'll answer.

#1...Because he's a nit.

#2...He talks to hear himself talk....

#3...He has NO idea...yet will chirp in EVERY thread.

#4...He won't support local tournaments.

#5...He's CHEAP.

#6...He posts NON stop.

#7...He's been banned 2-3 times already.

#8...GOOGLE..is too hard for him to spell.

#9...He visits the action room, and 'his' max bet is 25 CENTS a game.

#10...He's a NIT. (did I already say that?)


Is that enough? Or do you need some more.....
 
12310bch said:
Roger Long,Tramp Steamer,and tuscon9ball: I have nothing against you guys but I would like to know why you gave such snotty answers to Cowboy's question. They contained somewhat less than the spirit of which the Forum holds in high esteem.:shrug:
Click to expand...

What was "snotty" about it? I thought I answered the question concisely and logically. I only revisited this thread because I noticed it was getting quite a few replies, and I began wondering how there could be so much discussion on such a simple subject.

The rule book is the official source for finding answers to questions like Coco's. It's the route that all serious pool players take. They don't go to forums and ask others to do their research for them and then bring it back to lay it at their feet for free.

Mueller sells rule books for $6.00. Or Coco might be able to pick one up at Diamondback Billiards at 59th Ave. and Bell Rd. for a couple bucks more. From where he lives, that might cost him about 50 cents in gasoline. So, for ten bucks or less, Coco could have his original question, plus many others, answered correctly.

Roger
 
mY, what vituperativeness

Actually, Rick S you gave Cowboy a link which was a very proper thing to do. Why you then went as far as to violate the forum rules ,I don't know.
Let me quote:
"To be included, there will be no ad hominem attacks. No name calling nor insults. Disagreeing with someone is fine, but calling them an idiot because of their opinion is not."
This is particularly odd since my question was not addressed to you.:ignore:
 
huh?

Roger Long said:
What was "snotty" about it? I thought I answered the question concisely and logically. I only revisited this thread because I noticed it was getting quite a few replies, and I began wondering how there could be so much discussion on such a simple subject.

The rule book is the official source for finding answers to questions like Coco's. It's the route that all serious pool players take. They don't go to forums and ask others to do their research for them and then bring it back to lay it at their feet for free.

Mueller sells rule books for $6.00. Or Coco might be able to pick one up at Diamondback Billiards at 59th Ave. and Bell Rd. for a couple bucks more. From where he lives, that might cost him about 50 cents in gasoline. So, for ten bucks or less, Coco could have his original question, plus many others, answered correctly.

Roger
Click to expand...

do you mean if a person was face to face with you and he asked that same question you would respond with ,"I know the answer but I'm not going to tell you. If you want to know , go buy the book like I did." Huh?
Sorry , that's snotty.
 
12310bch said:
do you mean if a person was face to face with you and he asked that same question you would respond with ,"I know the answer but I'm not going to tell you. If you want to know , go buy the book like I did." Huh?
Sorry , that's snotty.
Click to expand...

No, I would tell him the truth: "I'm sorry, I really do NOT know the answer to that question; you should consult an up-to-date rule book if you want an accurate answer."

And by the way, "snotty" is a poor choice of words. It conjures up disgusting images in one's mind (and you know the images I'm talking about). So to call another person "snotty" might not be any better than calling them an idiot. ;)

Roger
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top